Posted on Fri, May. 17, 2002
[size=4]Oakley man arrested after cache of weapons is seized[/size=4]
By Celeste Ward
OAKLEY - Local and federal authorities have arrested a 58-year-old man who they say had explosives and illegally modified weapons at his Oakley home, including a .30-caliber, tripod-mounted machine gun.
Besides 13 weapons, also including an AR-15 rifle, which is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, truck driver Alan Eugene Gingras had booby-trapped explosives, tracer rounds, grenades and armor-piercing bullets in his house, said Oakley police Chief Tom Lambert.
Several of the weapons were modified to fire automatically.
Police with an arrest warrant stopped Gingras as he got into his car Wednesday at 8 p.m., officials said. Authorities then searched his home in the 1800 block of Delta Meadows Way. Gingras' wife was home at the time, Lambert said.
Officers from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms obtained the information about Gingras, and Oakley police and deputies from Alameda and Contra Costa counties sheriff's offices assisted them.
Lambert said Gingras collected weapons and had been doing so for some time, but there was no indication he was planning a violent act.
Gingras is being held at County Jail in Martinez on [b]suspicion of being a felon in possession of a firearm[/b] and manufacturing and possessing an assault weapon, Lambert said. His bail was set at $250,000.
Lambert did not know what Gingras had been convicted of or when. A check at the Contra Costa Superior Courthouse showed [b]Gingras had no criminal cases from East Contra Costa County[/b].
This is at least the second such seizure in the county since February. Three months ago, Lafayette resident Sean O'Connell, 36, was arrested with more than 18 weapons and 25,000 rounds of ammunition. Police say they found a collection of illegal guns, knives, swords and a booby-trapped garage at his home.
[url]www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/3282100.htm[/url]
As far as "manufacturing and possessing an assault weapon", that could simply mean he stored a FAL with the pistol grip attached, which makes it an assault rifle in CA. If it wasn't registered, he's in trouble.
I get the feeling there is more (or less) to this story than is being told.

"Okay, but I'm not good at details, or the big picture. I also show up late, and drunk. I've got a good feeling about this."- Homer Simpson

Interesting that they specifically single out the AR15 - as if it is any different from any other .223 semi-auto. They call it the civilian version of the M16 without bothering to mention that it isn't a machine gun.

He must be a really dangerous man if
________________________________________________
"Oakley police and deputies from Alameda and Contra Costa counties sheriff's offices assisted them.
_________________________________________________
I love it when the goveernment uses suspicion and can't even figure out how to scratch their backside. This must be part of the innocent person bounced on by the BIG BAD GOBMENT. They get prmoted on this kind of trash. While they can't find a crack house or a meth lab to bust as it would entail real danger.
The reporter is so non biased as to wondxer where he graduated( berkley perhaps)
Only in the peoples republic of california, anybody who has sense should leave and watch the state deflate on itself

Originally Posted By Scarecrow:
Does a bottle of gun powder for reloading translate explosive device?

View Quote

Absolutely. The ATF and LE have used this bullshit tactic for years just so they can trump up charges. The NRA has documented cases where blackpowder shooters have been jailed and tried for possessing "explosive devices and/or components" consisting of black powder and primers/caps. If an old training grenade hull is found, then the JBTs are overjoyed because they get to show it during the press conference.
With all of the "domestic terrorist" hysteria going around, it is only a matter of time before someone on AR15.com gets raided because of some lame assed suspicion excuse. What will you all do then?

Tracers are illegal in CA because of the fire hazard.
Hey, can you night owls look at my post regarding match ammo in the ammo forum? I want to know what's the heaviest bullet that will reliably feed from an AR15 mag. I know the 69gr. Match Kings feed, but I don't know about the 75s or 77s.

"Okay, but I'm not good at details, or the big picture. I also show up late, and drunk. I've got a good feeling about this."- Homer Simpson

Originally Posted By mattja:
Tracers are illegal in CA because of the fire hazard.
Hey, can you night owls look at my post regarding match ammo in the ammo forum? I want to know what's the heaviest bullet that will reliably feed from an AR15 mag. I know the 69gr. Match Kings feed, but I don't know about the 75s or 77s.

View Quote

Mattja,
first take a look at your barrel twist as that will determine the correct bullet weight for your rifle.
(The 75's and 77's will feed but unless you have about a 1:7 twist barrel accuracy will be affected.)

Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.” (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer’s hands.)

This is at least the second such seizure in the county since February. Three months ago, Lafayette resident Sean O'Connell, 36, was arrested with more than 18 weapons and 25,000 rounds of ammunition. Police say they found a collection of illegal guns, knives, swords and [b]a booby-trapped garage at his home[/b].

View Quote

What the hell is a "booby-trapped garage"? This generally implies an explosive device. Was this guy willing to blow up his house? Or maybe he kept a pit bull in the garage. Does this count as a "booby-trap"?
Frankly, I think the ATF guys have booby-trapped brains. When they try to use them they blow up, which is why they never use their common sense or logic. [rolleyes]

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." --Ted Nugent

Is there such thing as a illegal knife or sword? Do I have to start looking for pre-ban knives and swords?

View Quote

Believe it or not Cali passed some knife laws that were so stringent, that they had to ad amendments to make steak knifes legal.
Help me out here Californians. I read it not long ago in a gun rag. I think it was small arms review.

I wonder if my cans of propane would be considered bomb making equipment. If I put them up on a shelf in the garage is the garage now "booby trapped"?
More fine members of law enforcement just doing their jobs.
(the california voters are equally to blame for letting the shitheads who pass these laws stay in office)

Originally Posted By mattja:
Tracers are illegal in CA because of the fire hazard.
Hey, can you night owls look at my post regarding match ammo in the ammo forum? I want to know what's the heaviest bullet that will reliably feed from an AR15 mag. I know the 69gr. Match Kings feed, but I don't know about the 75s or 77s.

View Quote

Mattja,
first take a look at your barrel twist as that will determine the correct bullet weight for your rifle.
(The 75's and 77's will feed but unless you have about a 1:7 twist barrel accuracy will be affected.)

View Quote

Thanks. It's 1/9, 24". I probably better stick to 69's and get a 1/7-1/8 upper for the heavies.

"Okay, but I'm not good at details, or the big picture. I also show up late, and drunk. I've got a good feeling about this."- Homer Simpson

Originally Posted By Shadowblade:
Interesting that they specifically single out the AR15 - as if it is any different from any other .223 semi-auto. They call it the civilian version of the M16 without bothering to mention that it isn't a machine gun.

Shotar - [b]I guess the answer is to not engage in illegal activity or illegaly posses restricted items. Then they will not raid your house and arrest you.[/b]
Pretty friggin smug answer. If they want you they will get you and there is nothing you can do about it. If they raided your home, they would parade out all kinds of 'illegal' stuff and someone on one of these boards would give a smug comment just like yours.

Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Shotar - [b]I guess the answer is to not engage in illegal activity or illegaly posses restricted items. Then they will not raid your house and arrest you.[/b]
Pretty friggin smug answer. If they want you they will get you and there is nothing you can do about it. If they raided your home, they would parade out all kinds of 'illegal' stuff and someone on one of these boards would give a smug comment just like yours.

View Quote

Oh please. The guy's a felon. That means no guns. Sorry - one of the sacrifices you make when you commit a felony. I'd comment on the rest but we all know that anything else in the report is a result of a biased journalist in which case we're all forming opinions on this without knowing the full story...basically, talking out of our butts.[B)]

Well, No, my comment earlier was not sarcasm at all. It was a pretty straight forward statement. If I lived in a venue where certain hobbies of mine or the tools to enjoy them were illegal I would either seek to change the law or move. For example I do not have fo carts or 4 wheel atvs for my kids since riding one in this city is not really possible therefore I can't let them have it. But for sake of argument the article says this bozo was being investigated for being a felon in possession of firearms, not only firearms but illegally modified ones at that. Real simple, as a convicted felon he lost certain rights. As to long bladed weapons, I have no idea what their city ordinances are.
As to being smug, not at all. A simple scenario was presented and I commented on how to avoid it. Contrary to some beliefs the feds and the cops have better things to do than seek out law abiding people to harrass. It really is a waste of time. They in turn occupy their time going after people like this guy who actually appear to be doing illegal stuff. If ya don't like the law change it or move, but until then those who don't follow it take their chances.

Trusting your life to the benevolence of an armed criminal is not a strategy, it is stupid!

The guy signed this "MODERN AMERICAN DECLARATION OF LIBERTY":
[url]http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/signers.htm[/url]
Found this address as well on a geneology website, though not sure if this is the guy:
Name: Alan Gingras
E-mail address: abcdegin@gte.net
Anybody wanna contact him and ask what's up?

Oh good Christ, here we go with the whole felons and guns argument again!
Don't you idiots get it? Don't you see that they come for the weakest/least defensible people first and then work their way up the food chain from there? In the future, we will all be felons and subject to home inspections by police and raids.
Had the guy committed a crime with a victim (building a subgun is not a crime, in my opinion) in the last decade? Ever? Maybe he was entrapped originally, like Mr. Bob Stewart was. Who knows? Jumping to conclusions on the sole bit of knowledge that he "was a felon" disregards what is going on now that the ATF has serious money from the so-called war on terror to go after gun owners.
How many people do we have in prison now who are there for technical violations of some law or regulation?

Don't you see that they come for the weakest/least defensible people first and then work their way up the food chain from there?

View Quote

Least defensible how? Sounds to me like he had the equipment. Unless you mean - least defensible in a courtroom. Then you may be right.

In the future, we will all be felons and subject to home inspections by police and raids.

View Quote

Ya know, that saying about "just because your not paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't all out to get you" is funny and cute. But, I don't know that I'd want to base my life's decisions on that logic.

Had the guy committed a crime with a victim (building a subgun is not a crime, in my opinion) in the last decade?

View Quote

Sorry, but it sounds like it is a crime.

Jumping to conclusions on the sole bit of knowledge that he "was a felon" disregards what is going on now that the ATF has serious money from the so-called war on terror to go after gun owners.

View Quote

and what information are you basing your "jumping conclusion" on?
Bottom line for me:
Am I a huge fan of the ATF? Nope, not in the least. But - that doesn't mean every arrest is illegitimate. This one will be decided in a courtroom (where they will have the facts) as opposed to here (where we don't).

Originally Posted By trickshot:
Oh good Christ, here we go with the whole felons and guns argument again!
Don't you idiots get it? Don't you see that they come for the weakest/least defensible people first and then work their way up the food chain from there? In the future, we will all be felons and subject to home inspections by police and raids.
Had the guy committed a crime with a victim (building a subgun is not a crime, in my opinion) in the last decade? Ever? Maybe he was entrapped originally, like Mr. Bob Stewart was. Who knows? Jumping to conclusions on the sole bit of knowledge that he "was a felon" disregards what is going on now that the ATF has serious money from the so-called war on terror to go after gun owners.
How many people do we have in prison now who are there for technical violations of some law or regulation?

View Quote

Right. One has to be careful with the "felon" business. One can commit some financial infractions and be guilty of a federal felony. Beyond that, I'm sure there will be an expansion of the felony type technicalities to make more of us guilty. Frankly, that's why I have a post-ban. I could have bought a pre for the same money, but then leave myself open to the what-if nuts (Jeez, he may have conversion parts hidden inside this wall). Shouldn't have to accommodate like that, but I'm gettin too old. Of course, us old guys will be the most dangerous when the SHTF.

The trend has been to classify more crimes as a felony. In fact, even the Lautenburg Act prohibits one convicted of a misdemeanor from possessing guns.
In his day, Jesus was a felon. I also think rebelling against the Crown made the founding fathers "felons".
[(:|)]

Originally Posted By PoliticalScience:
The trend has been to classify more crimes as a felony. In fact, even the Lautenburg Act prohibits one convicted of a misdemeanor from possessing guns.
In his day, Jesus was a felon. I also think rebelling against the Crown made the founding fathers "felons".
[(:|)]

View Quote

Okay, then what is the [b]Lautenburg Act[/b] and is it federal or a state act?

"I believe in love. I believe in cancer... They are both diseases that need a cure."WA

The Lautenberg Act is a federal law that prohibits anyone convicted of domestic violence (even a misdemaenor) from owning a gun. So while the Act itself is a federal law, if you were convicted under a [u]state[/u] domestic violence law, you are prohibited from owning a gun.
more sources:
[url]http://www.gunowners.org/klrepana.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/academy/9884/bp_LautenbergAct.html[/url]
[(:|)]

Originally Posted By PoliticalScience:
The Lautenberg Act is a federal law that prohibits anyone convicted of domestic violence (even a misdemaenor) from owning a gun. So while the Act itself is a federal law, if you were convicted under a [u]state[/u] domestic violence law, you are prohibited from owning a gun.
more sources:
[url]http://www.gunowners.org/klrepana.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/academy/9884/bp_LautenbergAct.html[/url]
[(:|)]

View Quote

You don't have to be convicted of a domestic violence charge, or even charged with anything, to lose your RKBA under Lautenberg. If the neighbors call the police because you and your spouse, child, family member, etc, are shouting at each other, and the police report it as a domestic disturbance, you've just lost your RKBA without being charged with or convicted of a crime.

If what you're saying is true, it seems to be a blatant violation of due process from several angles.
I'll bet that it could be sucessfully challenged in the Supreme Court as a violation of due process, but then again, stranger things have happened.
[(:|)]

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Least defensible how? Sounds to me like he had the equipment. Unless you mean - least defensible in a courtroom. Then you may be right.

View Quote

Least defensible by way of "being a felon." Ever heard of divide and conquer? First they get everyone to rally against felons owning guns, then it'll be Harley riders, parents who homeschool, ex-military, etc, until there's nobody left who can own guns (except "them.")

Ya know, that saying about "just because your not paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't all out to get you" is funny and cute. But, I don't know that I'd want to base my life's decisions on that logic.

View Quote

The fact is they [b]are[/b] out to get us. Not wanting to base your life's decisions on that logic doesn't change the fact that, regardless of the Justice Department's position, gov't at all levels doesn't want us to own guns and will do whatever it needs to do to bring about that end.

Gingras is being held at County Jail in Martinez on suspicion of being a felon in possession of a firearm and manufacturing and possessing an assault weapon, Lambert said. His bail was set at $250,000.
Felon in possession of a firearm. This is the type of guy that gives law abiding gun owners a bad name.

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Least defensible how? Sounds to me like he had the equipment. Unless you mean - least defensible in a courtroom. Then you may be right.

View Quote

Least defensible by way of "being a felon." Ever heard of divide and conquer? First they get everyone to rally against felons owning guns, then it'll be Harley riders, parents who homeschool, ex-military, etc, until there's nobody left who can own guns (except "them.")

Ya know, that saying about "just because your not paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't all out to get you" is funny and cute. But, I don't know that I'd want to base my life's decisions on that logic.

View Quote

The fact is they [b]are[/b] out to get us. Not wanting to base your life's decisions on that logic doesn't change the fact that, regardless of the Justice Department's position, gov't at all levels doesn't want us to own guns and will do whatever it needs to do to bring about that end.

View Quote

It's plain to see that we have widely varying opinions on what constitutes a valid arrest. Having said that, my opinion remains unchanged as I suspect that yours does as well.

Originally Posted By NH2112:You don't have to be convicted of a domestic violence charge, or even charged with anything, to lose your RKBA under Lautenberg. If the neighbors call the police because you and your spouse, child, family member, etc, are shouting at each other, and the police report it as a domestic disturbance, you've just lost your RKBA without being charged with or convicted of a crime.

View Quote

Not quite. Lautenberg prohibits possession of firearms or ammunition by a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (and it has to be a crime involving actual violence) that had a possible punishment range that included jail time. You have to be convicted, the offense had to include the possibility of jail time, and it had to include actual violence, not just yelling. There is ample due process there, although I disagree with the retroactive way the law was enacted; a person may have plead guilty and taken a fine or other light punishment to an incident in the distant past as the path of least resistance and later found themselves deprived of a right.

Originally Posted By SeaDweller:
Ya, where the hell did he get the alleged "armor piercing bullets"?

View Quote

They were probably SS109.

View Quote

That's exactly what they were. My wife caught this on the news and called me out to watch it. They mentioned something about armor-piercing bullets and had a shot of green-tipped SS109.
They FAILED to mention that those rounds are NOT illegal in CA.

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
It's plain to see that we have widely varying opinions on what constitutes a valid arrest. Having said that, my opinion remains unchanged as I suspect that yours does as well.

View Quote

I didn't mention a thing about what I think constitutes a valid arrest. I merely said that the gov't is slowly but steadily denying the RKBA to more and more people by picking a small group of people out and getting the rest of the people to say "yeah, they shouldnt have guns! We need a law prohibiting ________ from owning guns!"
It's not paranoia when they [b]are[/b] out to get you.

Originally Posted By natez:
Not quite. Lautenberg prohibits possession of firearms or ammunition by a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (and it has to be a crime involving actual violence) that had a possible punishment range that included jail time. You have to be convicted, the offense had to include the possibility of jail time, and it had to include actual violence, not just yelling. There is ample due process there, although I disagree with the retroactive way the law was enacted; a person may have plead guilty and taken a fine or other light punishment to an incident in the distant past as the path of least resistance and later found themselves deprived of a right.

View Quote

Well, I haven't experienced it personally, but have heard [b]many[/b] anecdotal accounts of people losing the RKBA due to Lautenberg where the only paperwork done was a police report, and no charges were pressed. They weren't all from the NRA, GOA, etc, either. One of my section chiefs in the army couldn't touch a weapon because the MPs had been called to his quarters because of yelling. No charges were filed, all that happened was a copy of the report made it to the commander's desk and because of Lautenberg he had to restrict my chief from touching, carrying, etc, any weapons.

Same type of incident happened in New York about 1 1/2years ago. Only the police were called to the house for a domestic.
Guy had both legal and illegal weapons ( a bunch of AR's too), and he is now serving a straight 4 year bid in the state system.
He also was hit with bomb relatted charges due to his having Black powder and galvanized pipe with caps in the house.

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
It's plain to see that we have widely varying opinions on what constitutes a valid arrest. Having said that, my opinion remains unchanged as I suspect that yours does as well.

View Quote

I didn't mention a thing about what I think constitutes a valid arrest. I merely said that the gov't is slowly but steadily denying the RKBA to more and more people by picking a small group of people out and getting the rest of the people to say "yeah, they shouldnt have guns! We need a law prohibiting ________ from owning guns!"
It's not paranoia when they [b]are[/b] out to get you.

View Quote

Felons have been prohibited from owning firearms since the late 1960s. You act as if it is new.

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -Margaret Thatcher